search for: newarray

If I have a two column data frame like: > dat <- cbind("x"=c(1:100),"y"=c(100:1)) How can I create an array that splits every ten rows of that data frame into a third dimension of an array so that: > newarray[,,1] ,,1 x y 1 100 2 99 3 98 ... ... 10 91 ,,2 x y 11 90 12 89 ... ... ... Thanks. [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

...lly like this to work, but can't prove that it's safe. As I said in the other thread, !invariant.load and llvm.invariant.* are not the same. This thread is discussing the later, not the former. The other thread is discussing the former, but not the later. > > Given: > > %a = newArray() > %pLen = gep(%a, <length offset>) > invariant.start(<size>, %pLen) > %len = load %pLen > > %o = foo() // may deallocate %a > store %something > load %o > > I want to claim that the LLVM optimizer cannot do the following (but > don't have a complete...

...fe. >> As I said in the other thread, !invariant.load and llvm.invariant.* >> are not the same. This thread is discussing the later, not the >> former. The other thread is discussing the former, but not the later. >>> >>> Given: >>> >>> %a = newArray() >>> %pLen = gep(%a, <length offset>) >>> invariant.start(<size>, %pLen) >>> %len = load %pLen >>> >>> %o = foo() // may deallocate %a >>> store %something >>> load %o >>> >>> I want to claim that the LLVM...

On 10/21/2014 01:44 PM, Andrew Trick wrote: >> On Oct 21, 2014, at 11:46 AM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: >> >> Thank you for the explanation, I think I misunderstood your solution >> initially. Is it accurate to say: by making the definition of the >> source pointer of an !invariant load control (or data) dependent on >> some

After some trial and error I figured out how to pass matrices from R to java and back using rJava, but this method is not documented and I wonder if there is a better way? Anyway, here is what I found works: (m = matrix(as.double(1:12),3,4)) [shows m as you would expect] jtest <- .jnew("JTest") (v <- .jcall(jtest, '[[D], 'myfunc', .jarray(m), evalArray=FALSE)) [shows

Dear all, Coercing a logical vector to a numeric one is easy. The as.numeric function is used. However what do we use when we have a matrix or an array? Sumona

...l dynamic size of the array in the uint member. As you mention above, you should use malloc and cast the return value. If you want to get the desired size in a target-independent way (always good), you should do something like this: %array = type { int, int, [0 x int] } implementation %array *%NewArray(int %Length) { ;; Get the offset of the 'Length' element of the array from the null ;; pointer. %Size = getelementptr %array* null, int 0, uint 2, int %Length %SizeU = cast int* %Size to uint %Ptr = malloc sbyte, uint %SizeU %Result = cast sbyte* %Ptr to %array* ret %ar...

...= definitely lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks ==9565== indirectly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks ==9565== possibly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks ==9565== still reachable: 40,492,919 bytes in 9,170 blocks ==9565== of which reachable via heuristic: ==9565== newarray : 4,264 bytes in 1 blocks ==9565== suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks ==9565== Rerun with --leak-check=full to see details of leaked memory ==9565== ==9565== For counts of detected and suppressed errors, rerun with: -v ==9565== Use --track-origins=yes to see where uninitialised value...

Hi LLVM-dev! I'm having problems figuring out how to do variable sized structs in LLVM (which are neccessary for PyPy's LLVM backend, on which I'm working). I'm trying to do the equivalent of struct array { long refcount; long length; long items[1]; }; in LLVM, where the items array can be arbitrarily long. I guess that the struct definition should

...l#t_array > > As you mention above, you should use malloc and cast the return value. If > you want to get the desired size in a target-independent way (always > good), you should do something like this: > > %array = type { int, int, [0 x int] } > implementation > %array *%NewArray(int %Length) { > ;; Get the offset of the 'Length' element of the array from the null > ;; pointer. > %Size = getelementptr %array* null, int 0, uint 2, int %Length > %SizeU = cast int* %Size to uint > %Ptr = malloc sbyte, uint %SizeU > %Result = cast sbyte* %P...

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=53519 Bug #: 53519 Summary: Missing bits of geometry in Unigine tropics Classification: Unclassified Product: Mesa Version: git Platform: Other OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: minor Priority: medium Component: Drivers/DRI/nouveau

...ytes in 0 blocks > ==9565== indirectly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks > ==9565== possibly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks > ==9565== still reachable: 40,492,919 bytes in 9,170 blocks > ==9565== of which reachable via heuristic: > ==9565== newarray : 4,264 bytes in 1 blocks > ==9565== suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks > ==9565== Rerun with --leak-check=full to see details of leaked memory > ==9565== > ==9565== For counts of detected and suppressed errors, rerun with: -v > ==9565== Use --track-origins=yes to see...

Second revision of the VMware VMCI RFC patchset. It incorperates fixes for all the feedback about the comment blocks and style and now passes checkpatch with 0 errors and 0 warnings. Thanks to all who have reviewed the code thus far. * * * In an effort to improve the out-of-the-box experience with Linux kernels for VMware users, VMware is working on readying the Virtual Machine Communication

Second revision of the VMware VMCI RFC patchset. It incorperates fixes for all the feedback about the comment blocks and style and now passes checkpatch with 0 errors and 0 warnings. Thanks to all who have reviewed the code thus far. * * * In an effort to improve the out-of-the-box experience with Linux kernels for VMware users, VMware is working on readying the Virtual Machine Communication

In an effort to improve the out-of-the-box experience with Linux kernels for VMware users, VMware is working on readying the Virtual Machine Communication Interface (vmw_vmci) and VMCI Sockets (vmw_vsock) kernel modules for inclusion in the Linux kernel. The purpose of this post is to acquire feedback on the vmw_vmci kernel module. The vmw_vsock kernel module will be presented in a later post.

In an effort to improve the out-of-the-box experience with Linux kernels for VMware users, VMware is working on readying the Virtual Machine Communication Interface (vmw_vmci) and VMCI Sockets (vmw_vsock) kernel modules for inclusion in the Linux kernel. The purpose of this post is to acquire feedback on the vmw_vmci kernel module. The vmw_vsock kernel module will be presented in a later post.

In an effort to improve the out-of-the-box experience with Linux kernels for VMware users, VMware is working on readying the Virtual Machine Communication Interface (vmw_vmci) and VMCI Sockets (vmw_vsock) kernel modules for inclusion in the Linux kernel. The purpose of this post is to acquire feedback on the vmw_vmci kernel module. The vmw_vsock kernel module will be presented in a later post.

In an effort to improve the out-of-the-box experience with Linux kernels for VMware users, VMware is working on readying the Virtual Machine Communication Interface (vmw_vmci) and VMCI Sockets (vmw_vsock) kernel modules for inclusion in the Linux kernel. The purpose of this post is to acquire feedback on the vmw_vmci kernel module. The vmw_vsock kernel module will be presented in a later post.